THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2943 OF 2017 ORDER: 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order in I.A.No.2056 of 2016 in A.S.No. of 2016 dated 19.04.2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Before the Court below, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2056 of 2016 under Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of a delay of 837 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 509 of 2007. Upon considering the pleadings, the material placed on record, and the reasons assigned for the delay, the Court below observed that the petitioner had actively contested E.P. No. 253 of 2014. Despite having participated in the execution proceedings, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 by filing an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The Court below further found that the reasons assigned for the delay, as well as the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner, are insufficient to explain the inordinate delay. Consequently, the Court below not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, accordingly, dismissed I.A. No. 2056 of 2016, holding that neither NV,J CRP.No.2943 of 2017 2 satisfactory nor sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay and that the facts pleaded were inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioner in the execution proceedings. 3. In the present Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner contends that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the medical certificate dated 10.09.2013, which allegedly establishes that he was suffering from certain ailments, and therefore erred in dismissing the application. However, this contention cannot be accepted. The record clearly discloses that the petitioner had effectively contested the execution proceedings before the Executing Court. Further, the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner itself indicates that he was capable of carrying on his normal activities. Engaging an advocate and instituting an appeal are acts that ordinarily fall within the scope of normal affairs of a litigant. Therefore, the Court below was justified in concluding that the delay of 837 days had not been satisfactorily explained. The Court also rightly observed that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application were inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioner before the Executing Court. In the absence of any valid or sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order under revision. NV,J CRP.No.2943 of 2017 3 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:23.06.2026 SP